G.C. Garg, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by notice Annexure P -2 whereby he was informed that he shall stand retired from service on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt thereof.
(2.) THE Petitioner joined service as Sub -Inspector, Cooperative Societies on October 2, 1956. He was promoted as Inspector on October 13, 1969 and crossed the efficiency bar on April 1, 1981. The Government by letter dated December 11, 1992, directed Respondent No. 2 to retire the Petitioner after giving him three months notice or three months pay in lieu thereof. The Petitioner was consequently served with a notice dated January 5, 1993, Annexure P -2. It was stated therein that the Petitioner, Satya Pal Sikka, Inspector Cooperative Societies shall stand retired from service under the Haryana Government on the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the notice. On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed justifying the notice of retirement. Compulsory retirement of the Petitioner is sought to be justified on the grounds that a criminal case under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been, registered against him, -vide F.I.R. No. 21, dated September 21, 1992 at the instance of the Vigilance Department for certain acts of omission and commission while on deputation with the Co -operative Bank, Panchkula during the period April 25, 1984 to October 7, 1985 and that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules were pending against him. A committee of Officers considered whether the Petitioner should be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years and it was thereafter the Petitioner was served with notice Annexure P -2.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition deserves to succeed. The Petitioner would have retired on November 30, 1994 in the normal course on attaining the age of superannuation. His tenure of service has been cut short by the notice Annexure P -2 by about one -and -a -half years. During the period 1977 -78 to 1990 -91, he earned eleven very good and three good reports, whereas during the last 10 years, the Petitioner earned eight very good and two good reports. There is no report of integrity doubtful during the period of his service. As per Instructions issued by the Haryana Government, an employee is required to earn 70 per cent good reports during the last 10 years with nil report of integrity doubtful so as to enable him to continue upto the date of superannuation. The Petitioner was no doubt served with charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules on January 30, 1992, to which he submitted his reply on June 16, 1992. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on July 6, 1992 who submitted his report on October 1, 1992, The Inquiry Officer exonerated the Petitioner of all the charges but observed that he made some purchases contrary to the government instructions though the said action was in the interest of the Bank. The punishing authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer but awarded a punishment of warning as the Petitioner had violated the government instructions though such violation was in the interest of the Bank. The Government has itself issued instructions , Annexure P -5, that minor punishment such as warning/censure will not be a hurdle in considering the case of the employees for promotion.;